Restricting the Right to Speak: American Higher Education in Muddy Waters

All over America, free speech at the collegiate level was tested this fall.

The University of California at Irvine extended an offer of deanship to Erwin Chemerinsky, a political science and law professor at Duke University. Chemerinsky had previously taught in California at the University of Southern California where he gained a reputation for robustly affirmed opinions on civil rights and liberties. Chemerinsky continued his opinions by publishing a critique of the policy change pursued by the current US attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales. Conservative groups opposed the selection. The chancellor later revoked the offer citing Chemerinsky as “too politically controversial” (1).

The withdrawal of the chancellor’s offer is a form of prior restraint. Prior restraint is the restriction based on content in advance of publication. Chemerinsky was not hired to publish at Irvine. He was hired by the university to speak, obviously not freely, to a group of young minds, developing opinions. By taking away his classroom, Chemerinsky was censored.

What is happening to our higher education system? If well-educated, established professors are restricted from passing on their knowledgeable opinions, whose opinion am I supposed to listen to? Whose opinion can I respect? Should I listen to the Iranian president without any commentary?

Columbia University was willing to provide that opportunity, but also allowed their professors to voice opinions. The university invited Iranian President Mohmoud Ahmadinejab to speak to a college audience during his visit to New York. Ahmadinejab has publicly denied the Holocaust. He also believes Israel should be “wiped off the map”. Before being introduced a professor at the university made unflattering comments about the global power. By allowing Ahmadinejab’s opinions to take the stage, Columbia shined a spotlight on the fallacies in his argument. Columbia, a school with a large Jewish community, created a large marketplace for their students shop in. A Jewish organization on campus made a statement supporting the administration’s invitation for free speech (2).

Unfortunately, the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul did not allow the same free speech. The campus was considering inviting Ahmadinejab to speak as a part of a lecture series but did not due to his controversial viewpoints. A university spokesperson stated, "We didn't want to ... bring someone here who has said things that were hurtful to the Jewish community" (3).

Academic freedom is always compromised when free speech is restricted. If the university truly wished to provide their students with a great education, they would have invited Ahmadinejab along with other individuals with countering viewpoints.

As a high school sophomore, Lincoln-way East, the school I attended, denied me the right to a full marketplace. Michelle Obama had offered to speak at my school, but my school denied her generous offer, because they did not want to become politically involved.

It is the responsibility of an educating institution to provide every ounce of education available to them, like Columbia. By denying any resource, the institution revokes a piece of a student’s education. Free speech opportunities surround us. What are we being censored from?

These different events across the country have potentially severe inferences for academic freedom and free speech. Be sure to keep your academic freedom under intense examination.

Sources:

(1) http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uci9nov09,0,5637158.story?coll=la-home-local

(2) http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/ahmadinejad2.html

(3) http://chronicle.com/subscribe/login?url=http%3A%2F%2Fchronicle.com%2Fweekly%2Fv54%2Fi10%2F10b00701.htm